I'll begin by saying that I have no issue with guns being
used in society. Although, not
necessarily ideal, they have their practical uses as well as their pragmatic
necessities. Small arms capable of
delivering lethal force at range will be warranted so long as we live in a
fallen state. It is my hope here that I
may shed light on some problems which are introduced in "Pro-Gun",
and as such present a worthy argument to weight against it.

Now, of primary concern is my hope that it can be
established that if anything there is a moral imperative in the context of
government, not to discourage the proficient use of arms, but rather to ensure
such potential for the purpose of lawful defense in any decent society. If such is the case, and there is in fact no
moral standing for tyrannical "gun control", than we should not
entertain the pragmatic arguments for inhibition of the bearing of arms as
valid to begin with, and as such "Pro-Gun" represents a failure in
that we have already conceded the real argument, which is that there is a right
to bear arms independent of external agency, such as government. We should never stoop to such a level as to
quantify humanity, and base those things which bring about government to secure
in question on an arbitrary basis of how it might fit in with any given
policy. The interest in life does not
outweigh the right to life of autonomous persons, and any policy which is
predicated to the contrary is fundamentally flawed. A policy which is not "Pro-gun" but
which respects our right to bear arms for the purpose of personal and the
common defense may arguably prove beneficial to members of our society. It is honest to admit that guns are
destructive devices, presenting a degree of risk outside of a controlled
environment, as it is honest to admit that by consenting to such a
controlled environment we forfeit the original purpose in which government is
justifiably established in the first place. In matters of human rights, it is of vital importance that we as a
society hold truth in utmost priority, thus reflected in all aspects of
life. We cannot argue for the
consequence of evil, but we must persist against the forces of evil.

Of secondary consequence to entertaining the adversary of
any free and decent society, is their proclivity to focus on "guns"
as if they are a primary cause of strife, rather than a commodity the people
deem valuable with valid reason. We
should never contend that guns "save lives". This is actually a dangerous mentality, as in
real life, people save people, and their ability to do so rests in their
preparedness, not the tool. If one isn't
prepared in understanding and practice to use a gun for damage control, then
they should not be expected to "save lives" with a gun. A gun will NOT protect you, and it will not
keep you from losing the fight, and it will not ensure that you are clear
headed enough to act appropriately under duress. Lethal force is the last option of recourse. We can only turn the tables, once a threat
has already been levied against us. All
proactive options, such as avoiding trouble to begin with, de-escalation, or
non-lethal measures provide the greatest protection. Once you draw a weapon, you put an assailant
in the same or greater level of insecurity as yourself, and once you pull the
trigger, you cannot take back the consequences, which play out in a split
second. On one hand, if you need it, you
REALLY need it, but using a gun for self-defense is about as far from ideal as
one can imagine, and that's just the plain truth that we cannot deviate
from.

Another question we have to ask ourselves is how we wound up
being "Pro-Gun". Surely, just
like having a fire extinguisher in the home, so to is it responsible to have
some means to protect oneself and their loved ones. That is fine, and the tools each head of
household deems most suitable to their unique prospects is something I respect
generally. For many people, a gun has
its place, although its arguable that something like pepper spray would provide
greater protection to the vast majority of Americans. Although it is not quite as reliable, it is
reliable none the less, and it is useful in the majority of circumstances a law
abiding citizen might face. In an
escalating situation, we are better off to avoid the threat proactively, so
disorientation and retreat is preferable where practical. When it comes to liability, non-lethal
measures allow us to think more creatively out of a problem, and require a
lower threshold of training standard to rely on day to day. In a setting with innocent bystanders,
less-lethal options are easier to employ under stress with minimal risk, and in
the rare event that you lose control of the weapon it poses less threat to your
life, as well as that of a fearful assailant, not to mention the cost of law
enforcement, damages, and challenges to recovery.

Initially, we have to ask ourselves as well, the ethics of
"Pro-Gun". There are none if
it is predicated in reaction to aristocratic rivalry. We should start from a basis of what is
right. The communities being effected by
"gun violence" are riddled with people who are
"Pro-Gun". We fail in such respect
to reconcile that most everyone thinks of themselves as a "good guy",
which is correct and natural, and they are liable to utilize a gun to protect
themselves like anyone would, but not everyone is prepared for such an
undertaking. There must always be an
underlying basis establishing what is appropriate and why, or we do not
properly address the multiple failures which lead to people shooting each other
over a couple ounces of pot.

Consider
the sheer scale of wasted time brought by the "Pro-Gun" debate as it
is oriented around guns. This is time we
could actually be putting towards the sources of violence in ourselves and our
communities, which in turn would free yet more time in coping, and yet we
persist in the nonsensical idea that guns can be thought of as collectively
"good" or "bad", as if people have no agency, that whatever
the effect, guns "happen" to us. The term "gun culture" has recently arisen, which is a
travesty, as any nation which is remotely functional at this time utilizes
firearms in some fashion, according to the values and heritage of their
culture. It should be thought long and
hard about how we allow our discourse to stoop to such a level. We, Americans, have serious underlying issues
to address and we have causations to address as well. The majority of our time as it relates to
guns, ought be dedicated from our commitment to one another, whether it be
relationships in domestic abuse, redress of mental health, or recounting from
an early point in development how children are brought in to such areas. However inappropriate the "gun
control" may appear from a state of ignorance, how much more so are we in
leading astray from reason.

Round 2

Published:
05.10.19 12:17AM

My opponent's argument has not consisted of any real arguments, statistics, or a position of guns. The only arguments I can find is using pepper spray. He claims

I'll begin by saying that I have no issue with guns being used in society.

It does not seem that he is entirely opposed to banning guns with this statement, and I am not really sure what he is saying. He has not provided a clear stance on his gun position. I would ask my opponent to make it clear what he wants to do and back it up with evidence, not vague, blurry paragraphs of abstract ideas.

We should never contend that guns "save lives". This is actually a dangerous mentality, as in real life, people save people, and their ability to do so rests in their preparedness, not the tool. If one isn't prepared in understanding and practice to use a gun for damage control, then they should not be expected to "save lives" with a gun. A gun will NOT protect you, and it will not keep you from losing the fight, and it will not ensure that you are clear headed enough to act appropriately under duress.

It largely rests in the tool. Sure you can be prepared with your karate chops when a criminal busts into your house with a semi-automatic gun, but that won't do much. A gun is a deterrent to crime, even so if you brandish it. It also provides self-defense if you fire it towards the criminal in the most extreme cases. Most people who own a gun, especially concealed carry holders, know how to use a gun very well and regularly practice. Concealed-carry holders commit felonies and misdemeanors 84% LESS than POLICE OFFICERS! That is how law-abiding they are.[1] A gun will protect you, I don't know what the basis is for this. Guns are used defensively 2.5M times a year, so they do save many lives. On average, around 12,000 gun-related homicides occur every year, depending on the source. As stated by a Kleck-Gertz study, 15.7% of people who were involved in a DGU (Defensive Gun Use) said they almost certainly saved theirs or someone else’s life. In addition to that, another 14.6% said they probably saved a life. Since I want to be conservative with my numbers, let’s say that everyone who said they probably saved a life are wrong. According to an unpublished CDC study, there are 2.5 million DGUs per year. Since they surveyed 222 participants, the margin of error with a 95% confidence level calculated to be plus or minus 4.8%. This signifies that at bare minimum 270,000 lives are saved by guns, up to over 500,000 just counting the “almost certainly people.” If all the “probably” people are right, then that number goes beyond 800,000. Moreover, for every firearm homicide, at least 20-70 lives are saved by guns. If all gun deaths are counted, then 8-23 lives are saved per death[2].

non-lethal measures provide the greatest protection.

Pepper spray and tasers don't deter criminals. Why? They are non-lethal. Shocking. Especially when the criminals are at a distance, their guns against you will kill you, and they won't be deterred from your tasers that extend a foot or your 2 ounce bottle of pepper spray.

Those are basically the only real arguments I could find. Please provide solutions and real evidence with your claims next round.

It does not seem that he is entirely opposed to banning guns with this statement, and I am not really sure what he is saying. He has not provided a clear stance on his gun position. I would ask my opponent to make it clear what he wants to do and back it up with evidence, not vague, blurry paragraphs of abstract ideas.

To clarify, I am at this time, to the left of a gun.

For now, I will continue to address problems apparently
brought about in Pro-Gun.

It largely rests in
the tool. Sure you can be prepared with
your karate chops when a criminal busts into your house with a semi-automatic
gun, but that won't do much. A gun is a
deterrent to crime, even so if you brandish it. It also provides self-defense if you fire it towards the criminal in the
most extreme cases. Most people who own
a gun, especially concealed carry holders, know how to use a gun very well and
regularly practice. Concealed-carry holders commit felonies and misdemeanors
84% LESS than POLICE OFFICERS! That is
how law-abiding they are.[1] A gun will
protect you, I don't know what the basis is for this. Guns are used defensively 2.5M times a year,
so they do save many lives. On average,
around 12,000 gun-related homicides occur every year, depending on the
source. As stated by a Kleck-Gertz
study, 15.7% of people who were involved in a DGU (Defensive Gun Use) said they
almost certainly saved theirs or someone else’s life. In addition to that, another 14.6% said they
probably saved a life. Since I want to be conservative with my numbers, let’s
say that everyone who said they probably saved a life are wrong. According to an unpublished CDC study, there
are 2.5 million DGUs per year. Since they surveyed 222 participants, the margin
of error with a 95% confidence level calculated to be plus or minus 4.8%. This signifies that at bare minimum 270,000
lives are saved by guns, up to over 500,000 just counting the “almost certainly
people.” If all the “probably” people are right, then that number goes beyond
800,000. Moreover, for every firearm
homicide, at least 20-70 lives are saved by guns. If all gun deaths are counted,
then 8-23 lives are saved per death[2].

More misconceptions that could prove detrimental in the real
world have been introduced into the debate. I will try to address them and trust that my words will be taken in
earnest as they are argued in good faith to come about to reason. Again, we should never contend that a gun
saves lives. A gun will NOT save you,
and there is no honest way around this. To say otherwise would be an empty message that is liable to get someone
hurt or killed. Someone may be deterred
by a gun, and it’s even possible this may happen more often than not under some
circumstance, but one should never rely on a gun as a deterrent. A firearm is useful as a last resort, and you had better be ready to use it by the time you are pointing it at someone. Brandishing a firearm, that is, taking it up
in a threatening manner is an escalation to lethal force, and you now have to
be willing to back that threat. Brandishing a firearm is morally, and legally questionable at best. If anything, one should be thinking how they
might avoid using their firearm for two very good reasons, the first that they
value human life and have a general mentality for reason in favor of violence,
and secondly that by the time you have to use a firearm for self-defense, all
else has failed. Literally everything
that should not have gone wrong up till that point has gone to hell. The purported fact that guns are used defensively 2.5
million times a year in the United States of America is an abhorrent figure
that could not possibly be taken as supportive of the Pro-Gun position. Apparently to the Pro-Gunman, the more
failings we have represented which result in guns being used, the more “lives
are saved”. Such a view could be called
many things I suppose, but let’s suffice for the time being in pointing out
that it is indeed backwards, if not barbaric.

non-lethal measures
provide the greatest protection.

Pepper spray and
tasers don't deter criminals. Why? They are non-lethal. Shocking. Especially when the criminals are at a distance, their guns against you
will kill you, and they won't be deterred from your tasers that extend a foot
or your 2 ounce bottle of pepper spray.

Those are basically
the only real arguments I could find. Please provide solutions and real evidence with your claims next round.

It’s true that if someone walks out on their property holding
a rifle, it’s known full well that they are armed. I take no issue with this, but I do not
endorse a mentality conducive to a false sense of security in relying on it as
a deterrent. Again, we see a toxic ethic displayed by completely ignoring the proactive options afforded in non-lethal
measures. If you feel threatened by an
unreasonable person, there is a much lower threshold for using non-lethal
measures before you have to fight for your life. Where one might be looking at legal consequences for the earlier prescription of brandishing a revolver, one could be painfully blinding an aggressive stranger, which to my view cannot be dismissed as lacking as a deterrent. Avoiding what would reasonably be construed
as a threat to one’s life will provide the greatest protection. Using your common sense, and just staying out
of trouble to begin with goes a long ways to ensuring one’s safety, and it is
objectionable that guns should be portrayed as a supplement to reason and moral
standing. Going to church, acting with
charity, being there for your family, and friends, and an active life in one’s
community are where the greatest gains are realized. Certainly as it pertains to guns, it is not
having the firearms. There is a right of
passage that a boy takes pride in when their father lends trust as they prove
capable of responsibility. This kind of
relationship ought to be our focus, over their sheer numbers.

I should add that it is being implied to simply “use a gun”
in the event that a criminal is using a gun against you. This is NOT good advice. Drawing on a drawn gun is liable to get you
killed. A window may present itself for
you to fight and/or flee if a perp is somehow distracted or you might just be out
of luck and have to try to calmly cooperate to the extent required of you.

Round 3

Published:
05.14.19 11:43PM

To clarify, I am at this time, to the left of a gun.

Yeah no crap. You took the con side. This still gives me nothing of what you want to do with guns and want solution you want. There is really no point to debate if you don't give a position.

Again, we should never contend that a gun saves lives. A gun will NOT save you, and there is no honest way around this. To say otherwise would be an empty message that is liable to get someone hurt or killed.

My opponent has completely ignored my statistics that guns save far more loves than they take. Once again he is arguing abstract ideas that have no real meaning or evidence to back it up. Guns save you because it is a lethal threat that deters crime. In the most extreme situations you can pull it on the criminal if your life is endangered. Here is an example...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhW0BtEyH5M

Brandishing a firearm is morally, and legally questionable at best.

How exactly is pulling a gun on someone that threatens your life or is a criminal morally questionable?

If anything, one should be thinking how they might avoid using their firearm for two very good reasons, the first that they value human life and have a general mentality for reason in favor of violence, and secondly that by the time you have to use a firearm for self-defense, all else has failed.

So you have to value q person's life that is threatening your and other people's lives, but not your own? You have the right to life and the right to safety, so if a criminal violates that than it is reasonable to pull a gun. The 2nd one is completely an opinion. I already gave you statistics and a video. Especially if you conceal carry it is right in your waistband ready to use.

The purported fact that guns are used defensively 2.5 million times a year in the United States of America is an abhorrent figure that could not possibly be taken as supportive of the Pro-Gun position.

Abhorrent: Disgusting, despicable, hateful

So basically you are saying guns saving lives is a disgusting statistic just because you said so. Without any evidence. Great argument.

Apparently to the Pro-Gunman, the more failings we have represented which result in guns being used, the more “lives are saved”.

Yes, lives save by guns outweigh the lives taken. Not that I don't want a solution to those lives taken. In addition, gun bans have proven not effective in reducing murder rate, even though con has not even made clear what his solution to gun violence is.

I should add that it is being implied to simply “use a gun” in the event that a criminal is using a gun against you. This is NOT good advice. Drawing on a drawn gun is liable to get you killed. A window may present itself for you to fight and/or flee if a perp is somehow distracted or you might just be out of luck and have to try to calmly cooperate to the extent required of you.

You are telling people what to do with their risks. They know the risk. You situation is very rare and silly. Especially if it is a concealed-carry holder, they know different situations and how to handle a gun. If you let them get their way, they could easily go and threaten to kill others, so stopping them is critical.

Published:
05.17.19 11:43PM

I would like to thank you for introducing a link
illustrating an appropriate self-defense maneuver that is not graphic for the readers, where the
shopkeeper is able to influence where the aggressors gun is pointed, while
distracting him, and successfully draw from an open carry holster. Another word of advice, some of these old gas
station clerks have seen things and they are badasses, so be nice to them. I haven’t decided yet to provide graphic evidence
of people getting shot, and don’t view it as necessary to my argument up till
this point.

I’ll use this as a brief example. When the shop keeper pulled that weapon, it
was conscionable since at that moment he was in the right to rearrange the
robbers face to protect himself against serious bodily harm, and thankfully
upon pulling out his firearm he was able to keep his cool, and the situation
deescalated for the remainder of the video. Brandishing would be drawing a firearm, not to protect yourself, but to
persuade and threaten, as the robber was. This was no threat. He had his
weapon out because he was prepared to use it, and the situation was resolved to
his acceptance to the point at the end of the video at least.

I would be inclined to agree that gun bans are generally
ineffective, but that is sort of beside the point as the use of firearms should
already be considered under the rationale of the opening statement. Our argument should be as I stated, not
Pro-Gun, partially because it is antithetical to the real argument, which is
the relationship between the people and their government.

“Now, of primary concern is my hope that it can be
established that if anything there is a moral imperative in the context of
government, not to discourage the proficient use of arms, but rather to ensure
such potential for the purpose of lawful defense in any decent society.”- Snoopy, Opening Statement

Lastly, it is being assumed that people “know their own risk”,
and that I am only speaking to “rare instances” but hopefully all instances
warranting a defensive gun use are rare, and if we knew it, we wouldn’t be
calling it risk.

Round 4

Published:
05.20.19 06:09PM

My opponent has not responded to most of my counter arguments. Please take this into consideration when voting. He also has not said what his positions are on guns, so I don't even know why I am debating someone who can't form an opinion.

Brandishing would be drawing a firearm, not to protect yourself, but to persuade and threaten, as the robber was. This was no threat. He had his weapon out because he was prepared to use it, and the situation was resolved to his acceptance to the point at the end of the video at least.

Yes, so this is a perfect example of a gun potentially saving lives.

My opponent has continued to ignore my statistics of guns saving lives, so until he does do, I assume he concedes this point.

I would be inclined to agree that gun bans are generally ineffective

Con concedes.

Our argument should be as I stated, not Pro-Gun, partially because it is antithetical to the real argument, which is the relationship between the people and their government.

“Now, of primary concern is my hope that it can be established that if anything there is a moral imperative in the context of government, not to discourage the proficient use of arms, but rather to ensure such potential for the purpose of lawful defense in any decent society.”

- Snoopy, Opening Statement

I agree. This was not even a topic being discussed and con arbitrarily decided to make arguments I agree with. ok then

Lastly, it is being assumed that people “know their own risk”, and that I am only speaking to “rare instances” but hopefully all instances warranting a defensive gun use are rare, and if we knew it, we wouldn’t be calling it risk.

Hopefully the are rare, yes. I would be for less crime. I am talking about the risk in those instances where people want to protect themselves. Not the overall scheme of the likelihood of it happening.

According to the structure of this debate, I assumed no burden of proof as to the positive or negative influence of guns in society. It is supposed that Con's only burden is the dissuading the "Pro-Gun" mentality, which is a philosophical subject, and potentially political, with ethical considerations as outlaid in the opening arguments and description. This debate was structured purposefully to act as a bit of a thought experiment, but also has practical ramifications. My "strategy" was to allow the "Pro-Gun" philosophy to run its course while presenting as little evidence as possible, and actually allowing Pro to make arguments against their own position, and ultimately imploding on its own while leaving only the legitimate interest standing, which as it happens can be agreed upon universally and establishes a common ground on which to conduct reasonable discourse in the future. The potential effect of a DGU is indeed a "common sense" reason that the only tenable position in any decent society is "Con", and in taking the Pro you necessarily must hang yourself in vacuum devoid of morality and reason assuming the Con presents a proper rebuttal. Additionally, among the arguments presented is not to "stoop to the level", as Pro demonstrates instinctively as if to justify themselves as a lesser of evil , even when it is completely unnecessary, as I assume Pro is beginning to acknowledge in round 4, at which point we (anyone in disagreement) would then have a basis in reality to discuss relations with firearms, without need of the Pro-Gun position, which runs equally counter productive to a free and decent society to the vain discourse Pro begins by asking of Con in attempt to reframe the debate.

The theory is that essentially, Pro will either A) come about to reason, or B) is forced to find dishonest ways around Con's agreeable points in a vain manner which runs contrary to the truth.

Thank you for the critique. According to the structure of this debate, I assumed no burden of proof as to the positive or negative influence of guns in society. It is supposed that Con's only burden is the dissuading the "Pro-Gun" mentality, which is a philosophical subject, and potentially political, with ethical considerations as outlaid in the opening arguments and description. This debate was structured purposefully to act as a bit of a thought experiment, but also has practical ramifications. Essentially, my "strategy" was to allow the "Pro-Gun" position to run its course while presenting as little evidence as possible, and actually allowing Pro to make arguments against their own position, allowing the argument to run its course naturally, ultimately implode on its own failings, leaving only the legitimate interest standing, which as it happens can be agreed upon universally and establishes a common ground on which to conduct reasonable discourse in the future. The potential effect of a DGU is indeed a "common sense" reason that the only tenable position in any decent society is "Con", and in taking the Pro position you necessarily must hang yourself in vacuum devoid of morality and reason assuming the Con presents a proper rebuttal. Additionally, among the arguments presented is not to "stoop to the level", as Pro does instinctively to justify themselves as a lesser of evil, even when it is completely unnecessary, as I assume Pro is beginning to acknowledge in round 4, at which point we (anyone in disagreement) would then have a basis in reality to discuss relations with firearms, without need of the Pro-Gun position, which runs equally counter productive to a free and decent society to the vain discourse Pro begins by asking of Con in attempt to reframe the debate.

The theory is that essentially, Pro will either A) come about to reason, or B) is forced to find dishonest ways around Con's agreeable points in a vain manner which runs contrary to the truth.

To clarify, I don't care if my internet account wins or loses. I don't blame you for the forfeited round. I did fail to post in time, and I should have accounted for having a properly working device at the time I wanted to post. If you would like to discuss the ethics of your own choice, I would be fine with doing so over private message. I'm not accusing you of anything here in the comment section though.

Its not really about me. Its just a wasted debate now because its incomplete. I mean my position might still be weighted favorably or not, but the argument should have been added to round 4, and you opted out of final statements. Plus, I actually addressed some serious concerns that should have been noted just because of the nature of the topic.

I should not have to waste my time answering to disrespectful or dishonest misrepresentations. For one example being assumed under false pretense, I did not concede anything by saying "I would be inclined" and did not bring up any gun bans to begin with.

"Yes, so this is a perfect example of a gun potentially saving lives."

This is an example of two people wielding guns, who both decided up till a point in time, not to hurt one another. In real life, the mentality that the gun saves would need to be trained out of people. Situational awareness is paramount, and being prepared is crucial. You don’t know exactly how you will react under stress.

"My opponent has continued to ignore my statistics of guns saving lives, so until he does do; I assume he concedes this point."

This is false, as I clearly did not ignore the statistics. It is unwarranted for me to validate or invalidate the statistics, and I advocate among other things not to “stoop to the level”, as explained in round one, which was disregarded by you up till round as was asserted “My opponent's argument has not consisted of any real arguments, statistics, or a position of guns.” By simply not stooping to their level, it is possible for the debater to stand testament to how shallow the “pro-gun” position is, having resorted to a reflection to the sycophantic nonsense displayed by others. I am not “anti-gun”, and in taking the “pro-gun” stance it must be disappointing not to have such an easy “opponent” to banter with. “We cannot argue for the consequence of evil, but we must persist against the forces of evil.” - Snoopy

Once we have agreed to the establishment in round one, then we can start to have a meaningful conversation.

Snoopy takes a novel position; he is not arguing pro gun bans, but is arguing that Guns do not necessarily have a positive role to play. The exact specifics of his position however aren’t fully clear. As there is no specific data, and no detailed argument that can easily be assessed due to its more narrative style, it’s hatd to work out how to weigh this.

My main issue is that pros main point is that the statistics indicate that DGU is significant, while con makes a case that guns don’t help. Without reciting pros evidencd I can’t accept cons primary argument.

Con argues that non lethal means are preferable - as is training, de-escalation etc. Con doesn’t really justify how this can be generally effective. Con in reply provides just enough of an argument against it

I think Cons issue is that his argument was structure for a philosophical argument, on the forums; in the context of a debate, this type of argument that attempts to convince without facts don’t work very well when covering a non philosophical resolution: especially when the opponent has substantial facts to present.

As a result of the above, the real two key premises con presented that are easily weighable were refuted by pro. thus pro gets argument.

Snoopy takes a pro-gun-rights stance and says that Pro isn't really pro-gun, just pro-right-to-bear-arms. This semantic Kritik had some potential but then Con forfeits the final two Rounds and is basically surrendering to Pro who says he is both for guns and the right to bear arms.

What Con had to do was highlight that the endgame is to remove guns and the need for them. Con was partially successful in this but barely touched on it before forfeiting two Rounds of debate where he/she had to elaborate on that.